The member from Simcoe–Grey.

It’s certainly a pleasure this afternoon to rise in this House to speak to third reading of the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023. I’d like to start off by acknowledging and thanking the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for their tireless work and dedication to bring this bill forward.

As we all know, crime is on the rise in Ontario and across Canada. That is why our government is taking action to train and attract new recruits, break down financial barriers, and get more front-line officers on our streets.

I’m happy to speak to what Bill 102 will do, if passed, to make Ontario a safer place to live, and I will pick up on some of the comments of the Attorney General in his speech.

We’re looking at new ways to harness thinking about Internet technology to make justice accessible for all. We’re looking to provide increased access to critical services in northern and remote communities.

The members of the House may recall that, at the start of the pandemic, fly-in court proceedings—necessary in many First Nations communities—were suspended. This system, as many of you know, brings judges, lawyers, courts and victim support staff to remote communities, sometimes for single day at a time, to hear a wide range of issues. Unfortunately, access to reliable high-speed Internet had previously been unavailable in most fly-in communities. Something had to be done.

I’m proud to say that this government has invested in reliable, high-speed satellite Internet access and video conferencing equipment to enable virtual proceedings in 29 fly-in communities. This work has been flying ahead. I’m proud to stand here and report that, as of today, 24 of the 29 fly-in communities have Starlink units installed, and the remaining units will be fully installed and working in all 29 communities by the end of the summer. This is a great achievement. It is important and one of the cornerstones of our vision to deliver a justice system that is accessible and works in a timely manner, no matter where you live.

But we are not done making improvements and implementing changes there.

In the bill before the House today, we’re also proposing a housekeeping change to the Provincial Offences Act. This change will clarify an existing process in the courts, indicating that it is court staff, and not judicial officers, who file judicial review applications and materials with the courts. This change will ensure efficiency by bringing clarity to the process and eliminating duplication.

In keeping with our commitment to harness digital transformation, the Ministry of the Attorney General has unveiled the Courts Digital Transformation initiative as part of our justice accelerated strategy in 2021. This is a new digital justice solution that will transform the way people resolve their legal matters by providing on-demand digital access to court services. This end-to-end digital system will feature online self-service, integrated case tracking and more efficient court operations.

We have also introduced electronic filing, as well as a new online court case search tool so that people can access select court information with ease.

We’ve also made other changes that include the authority for provincial offences officers to serve part III summonses on individuals within the province by registered mail, courier or email, thereby updating the current system. Service of a summons on a recipient’s lawyer or paralegal, with their advance consent, is also now permitted in order to streamline processes.

We’ve also continued to support municipal partners in their efforts to enforce and collect outstanding POA fines. We have implemented numerous initiatives to help assist in the collection of outstanding fines, including improving the “Notice of Fine and Due Date” form, to encourage defendants to pay their fines on time to avoid additional fees and other penalties, such as a licence suspension.

Speaker, the Ministry of the Attorney General is also continuing our collaboration with the Bill 177 municipal working group to implement other reforms to further modernize the Provincial Offences Act processes, including implementing additional fine enforcement initiatives.

These are just some of the more recent initiatives we’ve been working on to ensure that the municipal court system works swiftly and efficiently to hear so many matters that affect Ontarians daily.

I’d also like to speak about how digital and Internet access has improved our criminal justice system and tell members about an ongoing transformation project that we are currently working on in collaboration with partners across the justice system, from police to the courts.

For several years, we’ve been working with the Solicitor General to implement the Criminal Justice Digital Design initiative, to transform Ontario’s criminal justice system and enhance public safety in the process. This system involves digitizing the criminal case record and connecting IT systems so that data can flow seamlessly from the police to the prosecution to the courts and then to corrections. Already, we have implemented a number of processes to help share digital information in an organized and timely way.

Since June 2022, criminal eIntake has been available province-wide, which allows police and other investigative agencies to electronically send and receive documents and data so that a justice of the peace can consider the information and allow charges to be laid, where process is issued. This has greatly reduced the time and effort it takes to put information before the courts.

We’ve also introduced a Digital Evidence Management System, which makes it possible for police and other agencies to manage, store and share digital investigative or evidentiary files using a consistent set of tools and standards. As of this January, more than 60% of police agencies have onboarded to this digital system.

There is much more to be done, but we have made great strides here. The safety and well-being of our communities requires an agile and properly functioning criminal justice system that works efficiently for all Ontarians, wherever they are.

Madam Speaker, through this work, we have also learned that enforcement and prosecution efforts are more effective at reducing violence and increasing public safety when combined with meaningful intervention initiatives. We also know that the traditional criminal justice system can, in certain circumstances, be limited in how it responds to the complex needs of communities, victims and offenders across our province.

That is why we have taken steps to introduce justice centres that take a transformative approach to community safety, by moving certain criminal cases out of the traditional courtroom and into a community setting. They help provide wraparound supports for accused persons through coordination with on-site social, health, mental health, addictions, employment education, and housing providers.

That is why, since September 2020, our ministry has launched four justice centre locations: in London, Ontario; Toronto downtown east; Toronto northwest; and, most recently, in Kenora.

The Kenora justice centre was launched earlier this year, in February. It is a groundbreaking initiative—the first of its kind in northern Ontario—and it was developed, designed and delivered in collaboration with local organizations, Indigenous leadership and the courts. It is an initiative that is truly born from a collective partnership, and it represents a meaningful path forward towards creating safer and healthier communities in our north.

Speaker, all of the changes I’ve spoken about today are essential in improving the lives of the people of Ontario, no matter where they live—whether that is through support and safety for victims of crime, effective and appropriate responses to perpetrators of crime, or reducing the complexity of our justice system while increasing its efficiency and its accessibility for all Ontarians.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk about this very important piece of legislation. I look forward to the vote and encourage all colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

The member from Sarnia–Lambton.

It’s a privilege and a pleasure to stand in the House today, as it always is, and address the House, especially on this important Bill 102, Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act.

The minister mentioned his trip to Sarnia–Lambton about six months ago, actually in June or July of last year—about a year ago now. Anyway, he wanted to come down to Sarnia–Lambton, so I arranged a trip for him. We had a great day in Sarnia–Lambton. Among a number of important things, one of them was, we went out to the St. Clair River and we saw where the actual drone had been caught up in a tree. Some American ne’er-do-wells were smuggling guns across the river with drones and they got caught up in a tree, so they were caught. So, focused on that, the Solicitor General brought that back, and I know I’ve heard him speak about it a number of times. He has included it in legislation that’s still to come, where we’re going to crack down on these people who are doing these things. Most of the crime that’s committed in this country, in this province, is with these illegal guns that are brought in from the States—not just at Sarnia or Sarnia–Lambton, but in other points in Ontario, which I won’t go into at this time.

Ontarians want to feel safe and protected in their communities. As the Solicitor General said—and I want to applaud both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for introducing this act jointly. Policing is a large piece of that, but it’s not the only piece of this act. The mechanics of other public safety legislation must also be modernized to respond to change and meet public expectations of what a safe and healthy community is all about.

As the Solicitor General noted in his remarks, the primary driver of the proposed Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023, is to introduce the legislative amendments necessary to bring the CSPA into force. The government has also prioritized other areas of community safety in this proposed legislation, including better protection for animals, modernizing the Coroners Act to strengthen the death investigation system, and streamlining decision-making in the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to make it more effective and efficient.

I will highlight these amendments.

The Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, otherwise known as PAWS—really championed by my PA colleague Christine Hogarth, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore—would improve recovery for costs incurred to provide care for animals in distress that have been removed by the animal welfare services; clarify Animal Care Review Board processes; and narrow the gaps related to animal welfare inspector authorities and strengthen those protections for animals. I will highlight a few of those amendments. Animal owners or custodians are issued a statement of account when animals are removed by animal welfare services and cost of care for the animal are incurred. The proposed amendments include providing greater specificity on the types of costs incurred by animal welfare services that are recoverable through a statement of account.

An additional proposed amendment would permit the immediate removal of an animal by an animal welfare inspector if it is in critical distress. This would address a gap in the current legislation to allow animals in need of immediate intervention to prevent serious injury or death to be removed immediately from an owner’s or custodian’s care.

Another proposed amendment would create a requirement for owners and custodians to inform animal welfare services when ownership or custodianship of an animal changes in cases where there is already a compliance order outstanding. This will help ensure that animal welfare issues have been addressed.

The ministry has consulted with a few key stakeholders on these proposed amendments. The other key stakeholders and the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposals through the Ontario Regulatory Registry.

The Coroners Act: Coroners and pathologists already have the authority under regulation 180 of the Coroners Act to retain and store tissue samples and body fluids obtained during a post-mortem examination undertaken by a pathologist or other examinations undertaken by coroners. The act did not contemplate the retention of materials for purposes beyond the needs of a coroner’s investigation; nor did it anticipate medical advances that could lead to the need to retain tissue samples for other purposes, like DNA testing, in the future.

Madam Speaker, just last night, I was watching a show on CTV about two infamous murders that took place in Toronto. Ms. Susan Tice and another lady, Erin—I can’t remember her last name right now. Those two murders are almost 40 years old, and they used—I think it’s called gen-gen for short. It’s an American program. They can trace ancestors, like great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers, and bring it forward. They have identified a suspect. So those two families, because of that DNA that was retained at that time, even though they had no idea it could be used in the manner it has been—so think of the advances that are still to come here in this world of the future. Those two families, at least—and maybe more, because I don’t think that individual just killed twice; I’m sure there were a lot more, unfortunately.

This proposed amendment would enable regulations to govern the collection, retention, storage and disposal of tissue samples by the Office of the Chief Coroner and the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service for purposes that may go beyond the immediate needs of a coroner’s investigation.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, otherwise known as the FPPA, creates the framework for fire protection in Ontario, including municipal responsibilities for fire protection services and cost recovery. Currently, gaps exist within the FPPA’s cost recovery provisions, and these relate to immediate authorizations to close. In addition, language in the current FPPA allows for only one deputy fire marshal when demands of the Office of the Fire Marshal call for multiple deputies. This proposed amendment, if passed, would support municipal and provincial cost recovery along with the appointment of multiple deputy fire marshals, and support efficient tribunal operations. Specifically, a proposed amendment would close gaps in the FPPA’s cost recovery provisions by allowing municipalities and the province to use property liens and the Provincial Land Tax Act, 2006, respectively, in order to recover costs in immediate authorization to close cases. The amendments would also allow the Fire Safety Commission, the FSC, to consider whether costs were associated with the immediate authorization-to-close-related actions when considering those appeals to orders to pay costs.

A second proposed amendment would allow for more than one deputy fire marshal so that the duties of the fire marshal can continue to be executed when the fire marshal and another deputy fire marshal are unavailable.

In addition, a third proposed amendment would strengthen the efficiencies of the Fire Safety Commission. This is an independent quasi-judicial agency that resolves disputes and conducts hearings regarding fire safety matters, including orders made by inspectors or the fire marshal for repairs, alterations or installations to a building, structure or premises. The proposed amendment would strengthen those designations and extend the time to appeal an order beyond the current 30-day period due to exceptional circumstances and eliminate the three-member quorum requirement so that appeals before the commission can be heard by a single member.

Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General, in his remarks, spoke about his extensive tours around the province of Ontario. I also had the opportunity either to accompany the minister and/or on my own—and I toured a number—anywhere from Stratford to Goderich; to Chatham; LaSalle; Essex; Stratford; and down to Aylmer, to the police college. I’ve seen a couple of the graduations there, and as the minister said, you see the impetus and the integrity and the opportunity on some of those young faces—and some middle-aged faces, as well, who chose to join the force in later life. And I know there will be a tribute—our friend from Chatham-Kent-Essex can speak to that. I know, as well, he attended a number of those years ago.

Also in my travels, I had the opportunity just recently to meet the new deputy chief in Sarnia–Lambton, the city of Sarnia, Deputy Chief Julie Craddock. She’s the first woman deputy chief in Sarnia police history. It’s a long time coming. I know she’s going to do a great job. She’s originally from the Halton force, so she’s got some great ideas that she has brought to the city of Sarnia. We also have a new chief—about two years in the running now—Chief Derek Davis. I know that team is going to make a great impact on the city of Sarnia and on that force. I had a chance the other day to talk with Deputy Chief Craddock about a number of ideas she’s got, which I’ve had a chance to discuss in further detail with the Solicitor General. She has some great ideas that she has brought from Halton. She has been on a number of courses. She has had the advantage of a larger force—to be able to tour and work on her degree, MBA etc. I know she’s going to be a great role model for a lot of young women in the city of Sarnia and the county of Lambton in that force.

In the meantime, I also had the chance to go to Chatham. I met the chief in Chatham—also in LaSalle, the OPP detachment, and the Essex one as well. These opportunities to go around the province are a great opportunity to go out and meet the people who are actually doing the work on the ground every day.

In some places, I had a chance to meet with some of the police service board members, as well, and we also took in some fire halls when we were doing that tour. The city of Sarnia—of course, I know those fire halls; I’ve spent a lot of time there. In Stratford, I got a chance to go up in the bucket, the truck—not too high. The firemen are very proud of the work that they do each and every day to keep our people safe in this province.

EMS drivers—I had a great chance to interact with EMS operators and the work that they do. I have a couple of neighbours just around the corner from back home in Petrolia who are EMS operators and work every day to keep people safe in our county, as well.

I know a lot of the OPP officers back home. I want to give a shout-out, as the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore did to her force. I also have—well, I’ve talked about the city force with Chief Derek Davis and Deputy Chief Craddock, but also out in Lambton at the Petrolia detachment, Inspector Chris Avery—actually, I knew his father; we go back a long ways. Inspector Avery is doing a great job. He’s got a detachment of over 100 officers. The Solicitor General had an opportunity to travel there when we were down a year ago—about a year ago now, in June, we toured the Petrolia detachment.

Inspector Avery is doing a great job. He has been working on a case—talking about cold cases: It goes back to 1971 or 1972, when a young lady unfortunately came to a sad end, and her body was found out in the county on a side road. I remember it very well. It has been so long, that case. Inspector Avery told the Solicitor General, “I intend to solve that case before I retire. We feel we know who did it. We just don’t have enough”—maybe through some of these DNA friends, these new ideas for DNA, maybe that will be solved. That family—unfortunately, the mother and father are gone. But the sisters and brothers of that young lady are still alive; they keep her memory alive each and every day back in Lambton.

So those advances in DNA and these opportunities that we have in this bill, if this bill is passed, will help those families in the future. Unfortunately, there are still going to be those kinds of cases, as we go forward, but if and when they do happen, we’ll know that we have the proper events here, legislation, to help in that. I think I’ve pretty well summed her up here.

I want to go on to talk about protecting animals in distress. I would really defer that to PA Hogarth, the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore; I know this is her specialty.

Speaker, protecting animals in distress, leveraging emerging science to improve the death investigation system, and improving the administrative essentials of fire safety and fire prevention are critical components of Ontario’s public safety framework. Taken together, the proposed amendments in Bill 102 are the basis to drive forward modernization of community safety, make operational improvements where needed, and continue to be responsive to the safety concerns of a broad range of stakeholders.

I know when they go to that famous AMO—Association of Municipalities of Ontario—the minister and the two PAs as well the as the Attorney General meet with a number of people from all across Ontario. They come to AMO. They want to talk about their concerns, their issues—it’s everywhere from Red Lake down to the Halton region, to some of the smaller communities like Petrolia, Sarnia, London. They all bring their concerns to AMO, and the minister has an opportunity at that time to ask a lot of questions—and he asks lots of questions—about what could be made better. What do they need in the way of funding? What do they need in the way of program changes that could improve that? So I’m looking forward to AMO. I think AMO is in London this year. I’m sure the minister is going to be there, as he likes to say, with bells on. He’ll be there, and we’ll be meeting with people again. I’m sure the member from Kitchener-Waterloo is going to be there. She’s shaking her head yes, she’s going to be there. Maybe she’ll come and meet with us, with some people.

As the minister said, it has been a great honour to serve as the PA to the Solicitor General. I’ve had the opportunity to meet a number of people, and like the minister said, we have some great staff you never see in the offices, both over at 18 Grosvenor and with the OPP and with the coroner, Dr. Huyer. The work that he does and his staff, and the minister’s backroom staff—they do a lot of the work that you never see. They help draft a lot of the speeches and the research that we have here in the House. We get to answer all those great questions from the opposition and the third party. It has been a great experience here working with the minister. He keeps us hopping, and PA Hogarth keeps us on our toes, keeps us challenged each and every day.

With that, Madam Speaker, I think I’ll relinquish the floor and we’ll move on.

Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Gender-based violence has been an issue that is increasingly guiding our spotlight. The justice system understands the impacts that it has, not only for the victim but for the families, and the need to make sure that the judiciary has access to the training that will allow them to weigh these situations in a way that is balanced and even-handed and that addresses the root causes and protects the family. That is the main thrust behind these training initiatives—but you have to appreciate that the judiciary is independent, so offering these systems and training for them is something that they will take.

I want to thank the entire team from the Solicitor General’s office to the team from the Minister of the Attorney General’s office for a great bill. I’ve been getting excellent feedback for it in my riding. As you know, Minister Kerzner was in Barrie twice for unfortunate occasions of officers we lost in our local municipality.

With everything that’s going on in the news—and we need more police officers on the ground, we need more boots on the ground—how are bills like this and the work that he’s doing across the province with his whole team and the Ministry of the Attorney General going to help recruit more people into our forces so we have more boots on the ground, so we can inspire the next generation of people and we can have safer and better communities?

Just a few weekends ago, I was at Thee Place for Paws. They do a fundraiser every year. They really applauded the previous work of this government for the PAWS legislation. They also noticed that in this very bill too, we’re strengthening and modernizing the justice act to help enforce animal welfare.

I want to ask my esteemed colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who is a really big champion on this file, what parts of this bill she has heard about that help animals and how this will strengthen animal protection.

Please refer to members by their riding names. Thank you.

Questions?

I’d like to thank the government members for their presentation.

When looking at Bill 102, section 6 grants new discretionary powers to inspectors. Last week, this very government threw the door open for new dog training and trialling areas with Bill 91. Training and trialling is a so-called sport where defenceless animals such as rabbits, coyotes and foxes are tracked and likely ripped apart in a fenced enclosure.

My question is for the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I want to ask the parliamentary assistant in charge of animal welfare in Ontario: Do they not think that rabbits, foxes and coyotes will be in distress as they run for their lives?

It’s very interesting; I’ll just say that when we graduated over 110 OPP cadets to constables just a couple of weeks ago, they said to me that when people step forward to say that their community safety matters, the interest in enrolment picks up immediately. So what we all have to do from all sides of this House is simple: We have to say that our public safety matters and that we have the backs of everyone who keeps us safe.

I’ll tell you something that’s even more important. I want to, by the way, give a shout-out to Chief Crowell, the great chief at Waterloo region. I said to him that we’re committed to building the Runnymede centre for first responders, a respite for first responders who will be able to go to Caledon—the location will be Caledon. That’s an example where we view the actions—what are we doing? We’re building the Runnymede centre. We’re going to build a centre where people can go and get the help that they need. This is what’s important, what we’re doing. The actions speak louder than the words.

I have a very good working relationship with the Waterloo Regional Police Service, and they’ve been here for 11 years, lobbying. They’ve always asked for increased mental health supports, because as we all know, these issues end up in the back of a cruiser or they end up in conflict. They’ve also acknowledged that oversight of police services is actually necessary.

So my question is: Why is this government removing the Ontario Provincial Police Governance Advisory Council? They were advocating for mental health supports for police officers and for community. Are you not concerned that by removing this level of accountability, trust will be further compromised in some of our communities?

I want to thank the government members for their presentation. Several of the members talked about schedules 3 and 5 of this bill, which enact Keira’s Law, the federal legislation that was passed recently. Certainly, that is something that we in the official opposition strongly support.

My question to the government is, when gender-based-violence advocates were calling for stand-alone legislation to implement training for justices and justices of the peace, why did the government decide to bundle those provisions in this bill? And why did they ignore many of the recommendations—most of the recommendations, if not all of the recommendations—that were made by the Mass Casualty Commission, a broad examination of policing in Canada, and also the 86 recommendations of the Renfrew county inquest? Implementing some of those measures would have really made a difference for victims of intimate partner violence.

It’s an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my community in Toronto Centre. Specifically, today we’re discussing the government’s Bill 102, Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act. There are some parts of the bill that are supportable, and I’d be happy to speak about these parts, but I do find that there are other parts of the bill that are very concerning, and so I’m glad that the government is here today to listen to those concerns, as well.

We know that the safest communities are not the most policed communities; they are the ones with the most resources. Much of crime is committed by people in desperate situations today, and they could be prevented. Obviously, we want to be able to get to a place where we have zero crime. Poverty creates crime. Addiction, without supports and treatment, can create crime. Loneliness, disconnection and a lack of community cohesion create crime. Police officers are dealing with the most downstream effects of these issues. We would not need so many police officers if we were not pursuing this lack of new recruits today as hard as we were, if the government actually stepped up and actually invested in communities to mitigate crime. It is proven—studying upstream avenues and solutions there is how we keep communities safe. Affordable housing is crime prevention. After-school programs are crime prevention. Doubling ODSP and OW is crime prevention. Funding addiction treatment beds is crime prevention. Anti-racism and gender-equity policies are crime prevention. Properly funding and resourcing our public schools is crime prevention. Increasing the minimum wage is crime prevention. I could go on; the list is actually endless, but the thesis here is exactly the same: When people have economic opportunity and social resources, they can live well and be part of the community. That’s when crime is prevented.

Affordable and, yes, government-subsidized housing is a cornerstone of happy, healthy, thriving communities. Just ask the neighbours. In my community, I speak to BIA members, and we are talking to mental health workers, we are speaking to street-involved people here in Toronto Centre, and they all absolutely agree—it’s a consensus—that mental health and addictions resources and actual affordable housing mean that we will have safer streets and that communities will then welcome everybody.

Every time I meet with a business improvement area, the number one issue that they bring up is community safety, but unlike the government, they are proposing a different solution. They are proposing supportive housing, deeply affordable housing. It’s not a radical idea. It’s coming from the business leaders in my community, and I’m hearing it from them more and more. Even more than the activists and even more than service providers, it’s the business community in this case, in Toronto Centre and the downtown financial district, that is actually leading that conversation by saying that the government needs to get back into the business of building deeply affordable, government-subsidized housing.

The government loves to tout itself as being supportive of police, and I would ask them to take a look at their policies a little bit closer. Many choices they have made over the last five years have actually eroded public services and the social safety net. Their lack of investments has made the jobs of police officers more difficult—it’s now more complex, and essentially it has made more work for the officers. The police should be the last resort. You should not have to call them when someone is homeless. You should not have to call them when someone is having a mental health disorder. When upstream services are eroded, the layers of help between the first line of assistance and the police get thinner and thinner, meaning that more calls fall to the police. This is bad for communities because issues escalate and become crisis situations more frequently. It is also bad for the police because they’re run off their feet, jumping from crisis to crisis, when they may not even be equipped to deal with a problem they’re faced with.

One of the programs that I’m most proud to speak about from my time at Toronto city council was the Toronto Community Crisis Service. This was a pilot project that I helped champion during my time at city council. It was introduced to four areas in the city. The downtown east pilot project covers almost all of my riding of Toronto Centre. It was done in partnership with the Gerstein Crisis Centre and other local organizations. We were able to successfully divert 78% of the 1,530 calls that we received from 911 with zero police involvement. The TCCS, as we call it, received a total of 2,489 calls for service from 911, as well as 211, and it was directly connected to community anchor partners. Out of those calls, 84% resulted in mobile teams being dispatched. Programs like this are a win-win solution. Our biggest champions are Toronto police themselves, who understand that they are not mental health workers; they understand that they are not social workers. When we’re able to divert those calls to the organizations and service providers that can actually provide supports, the police are then freed up to do real policing work, and they are more trained to handle those very complicated and violent situations.

This is why we need to have non-police options when a non-violent crisis occurs. If someone is in crisis and can benefit from the TCCS team and there’s a weapon, then we call the police, and then the TCCS will work with the police to go and be dispatched together. That’s how effective community safety works.

I have heard from constituents who have been overjoyed with how the TCCS team has assisted community members in crisis with compassion and professionalism. My constituent Chris emailed me to tell me about a situation he witnessed several months ago, right here on Parliament Street in Toronto Centre. There was a community member who was in crisis, yelling and approaching other pedestrians on the street outside of a grocery store. Shoppers were understandably distressed and concerned for the individual. Chris, who was on the other side of the street on a patio, saw the Toronto Community Crisis Service team approach the individual, provide compassionate support to de-escalate him and connect him with community resources to support him. Chris told me that he was blown away by how professional, how kind and how respectful the TCCS team was, and that they were able to help this person in crisis and that everybody was able to see community action in effect. He says that the compassionate community response to mental health crisis is what we should be amplifying and expanding in the city of Toronto, and I couldn’t be more agreeable.

I would even put forth that this government could actually take the model that we’ve developed right here in Toronto and export that to other urban centres to ensure that those communities are just as supported as we are. This pilot project is not as well funded as it can be, but certainly, with the right resources, you can scale it up.

I would love to see such a program expanded to answer the school discipline calls, as well. The presence of police during a disciplinary action can be stressful for many students, especially racialized ones. It would be great if all involved when a student is in crisis had access to outside mental health professionals who could assess the situation and provide options in a non-judgmental way that help us de-escalate the situation. Not every conflict has to lead to arrest. In all but a few outlier situations, a child in crisis needs support and strategies, not law enforcement.

That being said, I want to talk about another area where policing has worked incredibly well in my communities—I continually get positive feedback from constituents of many backgrounds—and that is in dedicated neighbourhood community policing models. Through community policing, four neighbourhoods in my riding have originally received neighbourhood community officers: Regent Park, Moss Park, Church and Wellesley, and North St. James Town. After years of advocating for neighbourhood community officers—and I was at the forefront of pushing forward a model of reformed community policing—in my riding of Toronto Centre, every single one of my neighbourhoods now is covered by neighbourhood community officers.

Interjections.

My question is for the Solicitor General.

I want to read an article that came out about nine days ago in my community, in Brampton. The title says, “Brampton Shooting Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Hospital, Schools Lift Hold-and-Secure as Police Look for Suspect.”

“Nine schools in Brampton were under hold-and-secure protocols Friday as Peel police responded to a daylight shooting that sent a teen girl to hospital.”

Unfortunately, these stories are all the more common in my community of Brampton and communities across Ontario.

We hear from some members of the House that their proposed solution on public safety is to defund the police. We hear that from members, particularly, in the NDP. I’m just wondering: Does the minister think that’s the right way to approach the problem, or is there another approach our government can take?

Just also to the member from Waterloo, who asked a question before: We rely on all the stakeholders to be consulted, to make the best decisions.

To the member from Brampton, a great member: He’s 100% right. We have to have the backs of everyone who keeps us safe. We can’t have people going through Ontario who say our public safety doesn’t matter and that’s why it’s okay not to say we will do everything we can to keep Ontario safe. At the end of the day, it is true—our government will do everything we can to have the backs of everyone who keeps us safe.

Questions?

Yes.

Our Toronto police have this to say about the model: “The neighbourhood community policing models consist of small teams of officers who are dedicated to serving one particular neighbourhood.” They’re embedded in those neighbourhoods for a period of four years. They’re able to build those relationships with community members. They participate fully in all our events and festivals, and when they do that, they are welcome. They are part of our community, and we do the work together by ensuring that people are taken care of and that there is mental health and well-being for all.

Once again, this project that was first introduced in 2013—and it came across the city in small quantums—quickly became a favourite of our communities. I’m so proud that my riding is the only riding in Toronto—and I suspect it’s probably the only one in Canada—that has neighbourhood community officers covering every single one of our neighbourhoods. That was because we, as a local community, working together, said, “Yes, this model works. Let’s expand it and export it.” I have colleagues, when I left city council, who are asking how we did it. We did it because the 51 division officers were listening to our community and we worked hand in hand in making sure that those lobbying efforts, those advocacy efforts could go forward together. I’m so proud of that work. It’s one of the biggest legacies we have in ensuring that we can scale up community safety efforts in the city of Toronto. Acting as ambassadors, the Toronto Police Service work collaboratively with residents, and they do so in partnership with community agencies. That’s how they build sustainable solutions.

I’ve seen this program expand significantly—and yet, every single year, we’re always asking for that program, but we get something different. It’s not just about more officers; it’s about making sure that we have the right type of community safety policing model. Speaker, I want to be able to share with you how important it is, especially in my patch of the city. I represent Regent Park, Moss Park and St. James Town, some of the poorest neighbourhoods in all of Toronto. And yet, I know that in our neighbourhoods that don’t have a heck of a lot, what we do have is community, heart and resilience. I’m so incredibly proud that we’re able to come together to take care of each other despite the fact that we don’t have all the resources in the world. But if you gave us more, if more was available—not just around policing, but around mental health supports, around affordable housing—I guarantee you, our communities would be even safer.

A neighbourhood officer undergoes special training, and they work with other officers who have already done the job. That’s why Bill 102, which actually reduces training, is of such concern. I understand that there are some people who feel that the current requirements have nothing to do with policing. I’ve heard this from the Solicitor General—that you don’t need to have an arts degree to become a police officer. Yes, that may be the case, but we want to have more training and, I would even argue, more education. I think it’s absolutely critical that people who go into policing as a career first should somehow be pursuing higher, higher levels of training. I’ll just give you an example. Not everybody goes into policing as their first career option out of high school; we know that, but reducing those requirements means that you’re inviting more young people into policing, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But listen to this: For most people entering policing, it happens to be their second career choice and sometimes third; what they’ve done first is generally some education. What we have in the city of Toronto—and I’m very proud of this, because I know I’ve spoken to various police chiefs who have talked about this next generation of policing that is oftentimes who we want to recruit in Toronto Police Service. This is what they do: They pursue post-secondary, in criminology, psychology, social work, community organizing, pre-law, mental health and addictions treatment, child and youth care, and so many other disciplines that then prepare them to be even better police officers. That’s how we know they are going to be ready to do the deeply emotional, complex work of dealing with people who are in crisis or having psychosis—not necessarily recruiting someone right out of high school who is then being asked to attend to a very complicated situation that could be very deeply steeped in trauma. I don’t know about you, Speaker, but I certainly know that is difficult work, and you don’t necessarily want just 18-year-olds to do that.

These programs that our graduates that we recruit from the Toronto police—we seriously want these graduates. They are more thoughtful, more curious, more understanding of people’s struggles because they have some of those skills based on the programs and the education that they came up through that explicitly teach it to them. That’s why the next generation of officers is going to be better than the previous generation of officers, and that’s why the Toronto police chiefs in the past have always championed more education and more training.

Even if future officers entering training have some post-secondary experience—it’s still vastly different than some of the skills that a high-quality police officer may need. So we want to be able to mash it up, and I think that this is where we start to look for skills such as communication, problem-solving, social skills, which are things that colleges and universities teach right in their classroom. That’s why through formal instruction and through life experience these students gain through their studies, they become better at their job, regardless of what it is. And I would say that if it’s good for nursing and if it’s good for education workers, it’s probably good for policing as well. These are skills that take them time to build. Some of the most recent high school graduates have them, for sure, but imagine if they had more time getting more education, getting more training; imagine how much better equipped they would be to enter policing as a career.

I am just as concerned that we are not setting up young people for success. We want the officers to be able to build those skills. We have yet to hear a single community advocate—I have not heard one—who says, “We want the police officers to have less education and less training.” Even police officers on the front lines have been saying they need more training. Rarely do I go into a community meeting that we don’t talk about training—and it’s not just training for a day or two, but it’s about training and education, making sure that the comprehensive learning environment is there, even in formal classroom environments.

Community organizations in my riding, as well as constituents, are calling for more training. I don’t know about you, but I know for sure that when I go into a community four months from now as a police officer—if I was going into the college, I’d want to make sure I have as much training as possible. The job is incredibly difficult, and I talked about why it has become more difficult: the lack of resources, the lack of government investment, the breaking down of the social safety net. All of that makes the policing work more complicated, more emotional. In some ways, we’re setting them up for failure—asking them to be everything to everyone, when we need to invest in the social determinants of health, which happen to be exactly the same as the social determinants of safety. If you want to build safer communities, you’ve got to invest in those things.

I understand that there’s a considerable degree of mentorship that a young officer receives from senior officers when they begin their career, and I’m still concerned that what we see from policing culture coming up over and over again sometimes is the fact that—we may have conversations or it’s alluded to that it’s simply just a few bad apples. But inherently, if the culture does not put community first—is not steeped in proper training and education—then they’re not putting community first. They’re barely putting themselves first because they’re just not equipped to do that job.

I know for sure that each and every single one of us would benefit from more training.

Think about what it would take for them to address unconscious bias and understand how systemic oppression actually impacts communities. You’re not going to be able to do that just out of high school; I don’t think so. This takes time, and it takes proper review and skill development.

We can interrogate ourselves and ask ourselves honestly—you don’t have to answer it here, but ask yourselves honestly: How much do you know about policing, mental health and the judicial system? How much do you really know about unpacking colonial concepts and anti-Black racism? How much do you really know about gender oppression and all the facts that bring about situations that create unsafe conditions? How much do you really know if you don’t have a little bit of life experience? Bring yourself back to age 18. How much did you know then—based on how much you know now? It takes time. There is no shortcut to it. There are no Coles Notes to it.

In 2021, it was widely reported that white supremacists and other organizations are actively recruiting within the police and military ranks. It’s hard to hear; I get that. I certainly don’t want to hear that. But it’s horrifyingly true. The report also talks about how members of groups are emboldened—groups that are supposed to keep us safe sometimes don’t, especially when they’re being targeted. We’ve all heard about the radicalization of young men. It also can happen when they aren’t properly educated or trained. That’s why we want to be able to train and adequately provide people the resources so they can deal with those challenges. I recognize that this bill is lowering the barriers for entry, and that means that you’re also putting less-educated and less-trained people into a pool of individuals where there is active, targeted recruitment. We have to be able to connect the dots.

I am very aware that we want to do everything we can to combat radicalization; we have to. We’re seeing it. We hear the government talking about giving religious organizations a few thousand dollars to put locks on doors, get more CCTV cameras, and hire a private security guard while the religious ceremony is on, when worshippers are in the house. That’s not going to address hate crimes—not structurally or systematically. That’s not going to reduce hate incidents and violence in Ontario. No way. You’re kidding yourselves if you think simply putting a lock on a door is going to address the rising, rampant hate and Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-2SLGBT hate in Ontario.

We have to invest to make sure that we are able to bring people together and to talk about how we prevent radicalization. We do this by giving them information that’s real; by countering it with a strategy that’s specifically dealing with anti-hate. Then you fund it, and then you benchmark it with annual reports. You work with law enforcement, you work with community organizations that are affected, and you continue to keep your foot on the gas—it cannot be eased up.

More and more recruits are talking about the need for training because they have gone into a situation where they felt untrained, not ready. We cannot expect 18-year-olds to graduate from high school, go through police college and then be given the uniform and then throw them into some of the most complicated situations. It’s not fair to them. You’re setting them up for failure.

If we’re going to build the modern policing outfits that we deserve in Ontario, then we’re going to need to properly train, educate and resource them. Currently, 33% of OPP vacancies—it’s a number that is real. It’s very expensive keeping a position open while somebody is on PTSD leave. These vacancies are due to officers being on long-term leave, so they’re still on the payroll. Then, you have to go bring in new officers, and then you’re going to not equip them for the complications of that work. Guess what’s going to happen? You’re probably going to have additional vacancies that will then eventually go on leave because you haven’t dealt with the issues structurally.

If we have a new generation of young officers who have not had the life experience or have not been given the training or tools to handle very challenging jobs that we are seeing, then there’s probably a very good chance that you’re going to have higher vacancies due to additional PTSD leave. This is devastating for the individual officers, for their families and their teams that can be more overstretched. The communities that they serve will not be well served.

Robust mental health training as well as investments to make the job safer stand to benefit everyone. Ontarians interacting with police have better experiences with police officers with higher developed communication skills, problem solving skills and social skills if they have more training. Those officers are the ones who are most likely to be stepping up in a challenging situation when called upon. They will be the ones we want to dispatch to schools when called upon. They are less likely to face internal disciplinary action with more training, more support.

I want to share with this House the story of Constable Ken Lam, the Toronto police constable who very skillfully de-escalated and apprehended the Toronto van attacker without any violence. This is a story that really made us proud in the city, despite the fact that it was a very challenging day where hearts were broken. I remember where I was when we saw what happened on the screen.

“Experts say the powerful video of Alek Minassian’s arrest reveals a textbook case of an officer diffusing danger through a series of life-and-death choices based on training and a calm mind.

“The footage shows an officer who police sources identified as Constable Ken Lam standing up, turning off his siren and talking clearly to the suspect even as the dead and injured lay along Yonge Street after being struck down by a white rental van.

“‘This is exactly the type of de-escalation ... and response to these types of confrontations that we hope to see,’ said Ontario ombudsman Paul Dubé.

“Lam calmly holstered his service weapon, held up his baton and handcuffed Minassian as he lay on the sidewalk.

“‘He gave himself the space and time. He assessed the threat and realized he had options other than firing his weapon.’

“Dubé published a June 2016 report calling for increased police training on defusing dangerous situations after several high-profile deaths of people with mental illnesses who confronted officers.

“He said the constable’s actions are a sign that police are gaining from training that includes simulations of tense standoffs with people who are emotionally unstable.

“Sammy Yatim’s death in July 2013 in Toronto—where the mentally ill man was shot multiple times as officers surrounded an empty streetcar he was on—helped prompt reforms.

“In recent years at least one day has been added to Toronto police in-service training on de-escalation and ‘dealing with people in crisis,’ said Mike McCormack, president of the police union in Toronto.

“The program is part of a mandatory three-day training for all officers that incorporates crisis communication, de-escalation and containment measures.

“‘A major component of this training includes a variety of scenarios that are designed to evaluate” an “officer’s skills in effectively communicating with people in crisis and those who are suffering from a possible mental disorder,’ said an email from the union.

“Meanwhile, recruits at the Ontario Police College are now receiving more training, as are a number of police forces around” Ontario who are doing so, but it is not a province-wide standard.

“Mike Federico, a retired deputy chief of the Toronto police, said changes were brought in as part of a response in 2015 to the report by former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci on the Yatim incident.

“‘There’s a lot of emphasis now on communications and techniques that calm things down. The Toronto police has recognized there are techniques to be learned and opportunities to practise,’ he said in a telephone interview.

“‘I was proud to see the officer demonstrated ... a non-violent outcome.’

“Christian Leuprecht, a professor at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, who studies policing and security issues, said Lam’s actions were ‘textbook’ examples of the latest approaches.

“The result is a suspect who is now in custody”—obviously, this is past sense, but it helps shed light on why the devastating incident occurred.

“Lam spoke loudly and calmly, even as the suspect encouraged the officer to shoot him. When he claimed to have a gun in his pocket, Lam replied, ‘I don’t care,’ and repeatedly instructed him to ‘Get down.’

“Leuprecht said Lam seemed to go further than some others might have when he decided to approach and arrest the suspect, rather than wait for backup.”

“‘There’s an impressive moment when he’”—this is Constable Lam—“‘takes his firearm, puts it in his holster, he goes over with his baton, and he handcuffs the individual,’ he said.

“‘I think that goes above and beyond the call of duty.’”

Interjections.

Yes, yes.

“‘He could have had a knife. He could have had a suicide belt.’

“However,” Professor Leuprecht “says if the constable had waited for backup, the situation might have escalated and had a different outcome.”

This is an opportunity for an individual who no longer poses a chance of harm to himself or to others, and that’s when the officer jumped in.

“Federico said what the public saw in the video was something officers are trained to do, which is switch from a deadly weapon to a less dangerous option—the baton—as the officer determines there is a lower threat.”

Additional training is a factor, and Constable Lam made the city of Toronto proud, despite it being a very challenging day.

It was so difficult to process all that happened, but the tragedy of the van attack on Yonge Street could have been significantly worse if it was not for the quick thinking of this young officer who is highly skilled and highly trained. Only in his thirties, this officer, but this officer positioned himself well by utilizing and deploying his training so he knew that he could de-escalate without using his firearm.

Aren’t these the type of officers we want in our community, officers who are encouraged to become community members that we move through high-quality policing training right here in Ontario? If you want to set a standard to have a modern, effective police service, this is how you do it.

That’s why I know that in my conversations with previous police chiefs, whether it’s Bill Blair or, previously, Mark Saunders, they were really proud, and they would boast about how proud they were about the next generation of officers. I heard that repeatedly during my 12 years at city council, about the next generation of officers, who were going to be better educated and better trained than the previous generation.

I wish to be seeing these programs and resources, so we can get more officers like Constable Lam. But in this bill, Bill 102, the government’s bill, entitled Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, this bill doesn’t seem to value those skills, that level of training and education that officers have received.

I want to share with you an email that I received from a constituent named Stacey. I did not know Stacey, to be quite honest, but Stacey took some time to write an email to me. Stacey said this about Bill 102:

“My name is Stacey, and I live in Toronto. I am writing today because I am concerned about the proposed amendment to the CSPA, to eliminate the post-secondary education requirement to become a police officer in Ontario.

“I live and work directly in the community, as a clerk at a restaurant. It means I have a different perspective than the ones” you’ve probably heard, whether it’s “from elite right- or left-leaning voters. The majority of my co-workers simply do not vote, nor do they read about, or pay attention to the passing of new legislation.

“They do not believe it concerns them. They” believe that they are “powerless to change the system that has made rents high, wages low, and groceries more expensive than anyone can ever afford.

“However ... everyone I know is at least somewhat aware about the Conservatives’ plan to amend the CSPA to allow a secondary school diploma to be sufficient for admission to police college. Few, if any, of my peers feel good about this change.

“My personal feelings on the matter aside, one thing seems clear: The only reason to vote in favour of amending the CSPA on such short notice, with little to no research into the public opinion on this issue, is that those voting yes are extremely confident in the belief that they will never find themselves on the wrong end of an undertrained police officer’s gun.

“This might even be true for most of the sitting MPPs who will hear this. But it won’t be true for all of them, and” it’s certainly not true “for their constituents.

“How sure are you that your child will never be in the wrong place at the wrong time? That you yourself will never be walking down a dimly lit street at night, with a whisper of a resemblance to a violent suspect in the eyes of a young trainee? How sure are you that a child with a disability will not be mistaken for a public threat due to an outburst?

“Are you 100% sure?” Or “75%? Would you bet your life on it? Maybe.

“But what you are doing by passing this legislation is betting the lives of people you set out to represent. You are gambling on the belief that those who pass through the Ontario Police College will be able to distinguish when and when not to use their firearm after only 12 weeks of training.

“In Canada, at least, many of us believe that for the most part, police officers are brave, hard-working, intelligent individuals, whose concern is about keeping the peace. But I worry that” by “loosening the requirements to apply to the police college,” you are unravelling that belief, “not just in the police as a governing force, but in the provincial Conservative Party itself, and especially in the Premier’s leadership.

“I urge those voting to, at the very least, delay the passing of this legislation until more research has been done into how communities ... feel about it. I guarantee the answers will surprise you. To do anything less (to pass this bill with so little public consultation) is to gamble, yet again, on the hope that the people who have reservations will still be too disempowered to change the system.”

Wow. I am so impressed with this constituent, whom I haven’t even met, to take the time to write me such a thoughtful email, and I’m so honoured that I was able to share Stacey’s letter and her words into this House today. I want to thank her for taking that time to write to me.

I hear Stacey’s concern for her community through her words. I, too, worry that this bill has been rushed through, without adequate public consultation to determine and to ensure that the fears—and the efforts to amend the bill is to put people’s minds and to put their hearts at ease. Because what we know is that we want more trust in the police. We want the police to be able to work collaboratively with the community to keep them safe. It can’t be a polarizing effect.

I want to offer something into this House. In an editorial from the Toronto Star, they shared that in the summer of 2020, Finnish newspapers reported that in Finland they were seeing a disturbing trend. According to a survey conducted by Finland’s Police University College, trust in the police was slipping. Only 91% of Finns trusted their police. This is a significant amount that fell from 95% in 2018.

“In contrast, Statistics Canada reports that in 2019, only 41 per cent of Canadians had ‘a great deal’ of confidence in the” police, “though another 49 per cent of Canadians had ‘some’ confidence” in the police. That number significantly falls when it’s a visible minority group or people living with physical or mental disabilities. Victims of crime all expressed a lower confidence in the police.

What is the big difference here? Well, Canada doesn’t fare as well as Finland, probably because in Finland the police officers complete a three-year research-intensive university degree in policing before going on patrol, “while most Canadian cops spend only a few months at police college.” This is why Ontario’s recently suggested bill is “a short-sighted effort to forestall dropping recruitment numbers,” when they are no longer required to pursue a post-secondary education as a prerequisite to policing.

What’s also missing is that, based on Nova Scotia’s Mass Casualty Commission—which actually endorsed the Finnish model, largely because it is the proven model to be the most effective—this bill does everything contrary to what just came out of the largest national investigation on policing.

I want to offer you, Speaker, comments by Deepa Mattoo, who is the executive director of the Barbra Schlifer Clinic. She shared with me this feedback: Reducing the educational requirement could result in a greater diversity of individuals entering a police force. It could. While that may be true and we would all be thrilled with that outcome—if that is the government’s goal, and it would be a commendable one, I do hope that this government would be proactive in encouraging diversity in newly hired officers in more overt and specific ways, in addition to this mechanism. Building trust within marginalized communities and with individuals who are marginalized youth as well is something that could be achieved through the neighbourhood officer program’s expansion—once again, the NCO program being referenced by a legal clinic that specifically supports women fleeing violent situations.

By investing in Toronto Community Crisis Service—that’s how you would do it. That’s how you build relationships with a community. That’s how you build better, effective, community-based policing.

I’d like to share the feedback with you, based on the comments of the director of Policing-Free Schools, Andrea Vásquez Jiménez, who submitted a deputation to the committee:

“I am writing to you under my capacity as director and principal consultant of Policing-Free Schools and the focus of this letter is on Bill 102, An Act to amend various Acts relating to the justice system, fire protection and prevention and animal welfare, particularly schedule 1, Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, schedule 4.

“Currently, the clause requiring post-secondary schooling to become a police officer in Ontario has yet to come into force—yet your government”—the PC government—“is seeking to cancel this pending change and solidify the removal of the post-secondary schooling requirement for police officers.”

Then, the letter continues that they are here to remind you that this decision is not evidence-based. It will not contribute to healthier or safer communities, and it goes against the recommendation once again—this expert cites—for more education and more training set out by the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia.

“Community safety does not equal more police, and policing community safety equals healthy communities.

“At Policing-Free Schools, we know that creating conditions for healthy communities supports the co-creation of healthy schools and vice versa, particularly because schools exist within and are part of our communities and as an extension are microcosms of communities and society in which they exist. Community safety is about co-creating with bold, courageous actions, transformative, healthy, equitable, life-affirming and healing community spaces. Thriving and healthy community spaces—which in and of themselves are safe, have ample support and resources and not more police presence, policing, punitive and carceral measures and there is more than enough data, reports, research and evidence indicating this.

“The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the lack of evidence-based action by governments, both created new inequities and exasperated already existing ones. This within the context of the federal government continuing to place profit over people. Our provincial Ontario government for decades underfunded and underresourced our education system, the push for privatization of our education and the health care system, ongoing policy decisions to uphold poverty, meanwhile prioritizing funds into prisons and policing, to name a few.

“The current government has chosen to continue not addressing the root causes and not addressing social and structural determinants of health and equity. What your government”—the PC government—“is doing is further increasing a pipeline of police officers contributing to a heightened policing-carceral state. It is no coincidence that this government is seeking to cancel this pending change to require post-secondary schooling, meanwhile $267.6 million into policing, billions more into the expansion of prisons and, most recently, more into announcing free tuition to the Ontario Police College for new police trainees while simultaneously choosing to not fund or underfund those community-based support systems that actually support creating the conditions for the well-being of communities.”

It’s a long letter; I’m going to bring it to a stop there.

I want to be able to thank Andrea for the feedback because I think it’s absolutely important that we hear from all sectors of society, and yet at the consultation of the committee I think we heard from mostly police, to be quite honest. So if the government talks about hearing positive consultation, sure, we heard positive 20-minute deputations from various different chiefs and perhaps association heads about how this was going to help them, but I know that in the past, before the PC government took office, it’s the same officers who were talking about how proud they were about the next generation of officers. It’s the same officers who talked about the need for more training and not less.

The Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission is something I want to spend just a few minutes on. It’s a heartbreaking report, an inquest about the community tragedy that we all have learned about stemming from central Nova Scotia. I’ve got family out there. It was very, deeply personal. My family is located in Truro, Nova Scotia, right where the incidents all took place, so this is deeply personal in so many ways.

I read those recommendations. I read the report. There’s too many for us to list here today. There are just simply too many, but that report had an executive summary. That executive summary mentioned training at least 100 times, and it’s clear from that very well-documented raw report which looked at the modernization of policing and the effect of failures and what we need to do to improve policing—that report laid it all out for us. That report came out roughly the same time—that this government was putting forward Bill 102, and it runs contrary to what the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission talked about.

I know that that federal report, produced in partnership with the province of Nova Scotia, is going to be travelling, and the federal government is going to be approaching the provincial government right here in Ontario—and the territories; they’re crossing the country—and tabling that report. It’s going to say, “How are you going to do your part in the province of Ontario to make sure that the recommendations out of the Mass Casualty Commission’s report are going to be implemented provincially?” And you know what you’re going to tell them? “We’re not doing it.” Instead, we’re going to adopt Bill 102, which actually reduces education—completely contrary to what the Mass Casualty Commission is recommending.

So many different incidents and violent situations can be diverted with more education and training. I want to recognize that there was—and I want to be able to say this properly—an external, independent review of the RCMP, including a review of the contract system under which the RCMP provided police services to rural communities. And this is what happens: Sometimes you contract out policing, so you have it set up in one community, and you send them elsewhere—and I know there’s been times here, right here in Ontario, where we have sent our officers out because there was another incident that required boots on the ground from our community. That happened during the convoy in Ottawa. We were moving officers here and there, and then they had to move some officers here when we thought the convoy was going to land here. I know the city of Toronto got involved; we put up waste trucks, garbage trucks, to barricade the road so that we could keep Queen’s Park safe. We did that work. We did that work with the Toronto police. We also did that work with other police associations that were lending us a hand, just like we’ve lent others a hand. Whether it’s firefighting or sending paramedics outside of our city, when we need each other, that’s how it works.

But we can’t have some officers better trained and better educated than other communities. That’s just not right. We want to have the very best, most-educated and best-trained officers right here in Ontario. So therefore it doesn’t matter if you’re from the north or from the south, if you’re from rural and urban communities, officers are consistently trained so that they can all do the hard work of de-escalation and building relationships with the community so that they can be better effective in delivering and ensuring public safety.

There was a closing of the RCMP training depot in Regina and the establishment of a Canadian police college: “The RCMP should phase out the depot model ... by 2032” and create “a three-year degree-based model of police education for all police services in Canada.” That is recommendation 3 that is coming out of the mass casualty report. They note “all police services in Canada,” and this is what it also speaks to.

The RCMP’s training depot in Regina trains and recruits for 26 weeks. The report says that the training is far from adequate—far from adequate: therefore, inadequate. This government should take note because this 26-week training is more than twice as long as the Ontario Police College training, which is about 12 weeks. What are we doing here? What are we doing? You want to build better officers? Then build a better system, a better pipeline; invest. This fact is not just doable, but it’s actually two more years of training that is required in order for us to meet the call to ensure that our officers are better trained.

We need officers to learn the soft skills, not just how to discharge a weapon. They need to have some of those “soft skills” that actually enable them to be a successful, high-calibre officer. This includes anti-racism training, understanding domestic violence, de-escalation, assisting people with mental health challenges, non-violent communication and helping people dealing with PTSD, trauma and stress and so much more.

Now, I understand that this might slow down the number of recruits—I get that—and I know that there are some communities that are well underserved. They have no officers. But I want them to have well-trained officers—not just any officer but well-trained officers so that the situations that I just described—it’s not just putting anyone out there, because I did mention that the police chiefs were talking about the next generation of officers being better than the last generation of officers. I can’t stress that more, because it left an impression on me when they said that.

I want to offer you a couple of more thoughts, Speaker. The mass casualty report also identified that gender-based violence is a national “epidemic” and that a public health approach needs to be taken to address violence against women, “stable, core funding” for groups that serve women survivors along with the creation of a national commissioner on gender-based violence.

This was also reinforced by the Renfrew inquest, the 86 recommendations. Their number one recommendation is to declare intimate-partner violence an epidemic. It costs you nothing—absolutely nothing—and from there, if you declare that, you can build a strategy, and then you can move to recommendation number 4, which is to implement the framework to ensure that the 86 recommendations are rolled out and operationalized. This government hasn’t done that. You talk about safety. How are you keeping women safe? How are you keeping women and girls and children safe?

Violence-against-women organizations have been asking, protesting, pleading. They’re exhausted. The pandemic has beaten everyone down so badly. They want a partner in this government. They want you to work with them. They’re begging you to work with them, but instead, who is going to get more money? Not them, and yet they’re the ones who are receiving those crisis calls. They’re the ones who are struggling to provide support for women who are fleeing violence.

In the Toronto police 2017 report, The Way Forward—and this was touted as the modernization report. I have to say, I know this report extremely well, because I was on council at that time. I had several briefings with the Toronto police, including the chief at that time. We were told that this was how we’re going to build a modern police force, one that was going to be community-minded, one that was going to remove $100 million from the police services and then repurpose that back into the city of Toronto—because that’s what the modernization task force was about: to strip away inefficiencies and to make it a streamlined, modernized service that met the needs of the community.

In that report, training was mentioned 44 times in 55 pages, and it emphasized community-based policing, which I’ve already spoken about. In that report, the modernization of Toronto Police Service report, calls for more comprehensive training and an increased emphasis during employment screening for evidence of bias, racism and discriminatory beliefs. They believe that this type of training was absolutely critical because there was no place for racism, white supremacy, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and any other kinds of bias in policing.

The report emphasized de-escalation training as critical to ensuring that force is only used when absolutely necessary.

The report reads, “As citizens, we need to know that police officers will follow their training to put themselves in extremely dangerous and potentially violent situations without question or hesitation. We also need to know that police service members will follow procedures to the letter without overt or implicit bias, to ensure fair and effective prosecutions and protect the rights of individuals under the law. To be successful, the culture needs to promote and ensure a disciplined adherence to legislated requirements, training, and procedures.”

This report goes on to say: “Our intent won’t be achieved if procedures and training do not empower officers to be facilitators, partners and problem-solvers.”

The report also recommends “a partnership with an Ontario university and/or college of applied arts and technology to work with the TPS on its training model for a modernized police service. The goal will be further professionalization and active accountability by leveraging the partner organization’s ability to bring more academic rigour, additional training mechanisms, and research to create new and relevant learning opportunities.”

Mark Saunders was the police chief at that time. This was the report that he shopped around and brought to every single councillor and said, “This is how we’re going to modernize the Toronto Police Service.”

The Toronto Police Service recently had a meeting in April. The word “training” appeared 331 times in one meeting. Clearly, it is the responsibility and clearly it is the priority for both the public as well as the members of the police service. I want to make sure that this government understands that Bill 102 undermines all of that.

So yes, there are some good things in the bill, and I want to be able to separate that, but that’s not how this place works. You get to vote for the whole darn thing. I did move a motion at committee that specifically tried to undo one thing that I thought needed to be done, and that was to make sure that Ontario no longer is the province that doesn’t give the police chiefs authority to suspend officers without pay. I wanted to make sure we could finally reverse that, but this government and the committee voted against it. So that’s why this bill is so challenging and problematic for us. We want to do more with it, and we want the police to do better, and right now, the bill—

I listened to the member, and I know she loves her city very much. But I have to say, this is an opportunity where we had the president of the police association here, the PAO. I believe that if a member doesn’t support this bill, they don’t support our police officers, they don’t support our firefighters, they don’t support our animal welfare inspectors and they don’t support the coroner’s office.

The question I want to ask the member, who loves Toronto, is, will she support this bill?

My colleague from Toronto Centre talked about the police, and I think you tried to stay in the grey area. You are trying to avoid talking about defunding police and saying, “We don’t say ‘defunding police,’ but we say that we need to divert the resources,” and do this and do that. Again, I don’t know why we don’t come straight about that. This is downloaded from your site, “End police violence,” and on the first page—

My question for you is, with this bill trying to add more flexibility for chief officers to control and train, can you justify defunding police?